Cheers for the Holocaust? A Response to Dinesh D’Souza.
European colonialism was a brutal system which resulted in the deaths of millions of people across the world. Even though I stated that it was brutal, the reality is that the colonial system never disappeared. It still persists today, despite the fact that many former colonies have now received independence.
There are those such as Dinesh D’Souza who try to defend colonialism. These defenses often end up being ahistorical, disingenuous, and completely insensitive towards those who were killed or brutalized by the colonial system. Take for example his 2002 article titled “Two cheers for colonialism.” In it he claims that the assault against colonialism relies on three premises. He writes: “First, colonialism and imperialism are distinctively Western evils that were inflicted on the non-Western world. Second, as a consequence of colonialism, the West became rich and the colonies became impoverished; in short, the West succeeded at the expense of the colonies. Third, the descendants of colonialism are worse off than they would have been had colonialism never occurred.”
Firstly, D’Souza destroys his own argument when he references How Europe Underdeveloped Africa by Walter Rodney. In that text, Rodney clearly points out that imperialism was not a distinctively Western evil. He noted that prior to being colonized, many African societies were engaged in their own imperial projects which resulted in the creation of large and powerful kingdoms. The criticism of European colonialism has never been premised on the idea that only the West has engaged in imperialism.
D’Souza writes: “Those who identify colonialism and empire only with the West either have no sense of history, or they have forgotten about the Egyptian empire, the Persian empire, the Macedonian empire, the Islamic empire, the Mongol empire, the Chinese empire and the Aztec and Inca empires in the Americas.” D’Souza fails to cite who these individuals that he is referring to are. He certainly is not referring to Rodney, whom he does mention by name.
Secondly, I am not sure why the notion that Western nations became rich from colonialism is even a topic for argument. Western nations engaged in colonialism because it was economically beneficial to do so. A lot of resources and energy were put into the colonial process precisely because of how lucrative it was. Eric Williams’ Capitalism and Slavery is a great text which demonstrates how the slave trade enriched Britain. He writes that “the West could not have reached its current stage of wealth and influence by stealing from other cultures for the simple reason that there wasn’t very much to take.” It seems almost illogical to me that the West would have invested so much resources and manpower in colonizing the world if there was not much to take. The reality is that colonialism was very lucrative because it allowed the colonial powers to exploit both the resources of the colonies, as well as the labor in the colonies.
D’Souza claims that Western dominance was due to three institutions: science, democracy, and capitalism. In truth, Western dominance came down to science and race. Science played a role in the dominance because the advanced technology of Europe did allow European nations to conquer states which did not have the same weaponry which Europe had. Race played a role as well. Western nations often waged wars against each other, but they were always unified in the belief that white people should occupy the dominant position in the world. This notion of race created a sense of unity and solidarity which the people of Asia, the Americas, and Africa did not possess. For this reason, the Western conquests of the Americas and Africa benefited greatly from the division of the Native American and African populations.
It is very telling that D’Souza spares the details about exactly how Western nations established their colonial domination over the nations of the world. It certainly was not a democratic process. It involved brutal violence against the local population. D’Souza refuses to come out right and state that it was the barbarity of the West which allowed it to conquer much of the world. This was a barbarity which many Africans were not prepared for. This is why King Koko of Nembe complained, “Whiteman war never finishes”. The Zulu ruler Cetshwayo stated: “Why have the Whites come to fight with me? They are in my land: I am not in their land.” Again, there was nothing democratic about colonial conquests.
The notion that the victims of colonialism are better off because of colonialism is also disingenuous. Ethiopia was the only African nation which managed to repel the European invasion by defeating a colonial army. The result of this was that Menelik II was free to modernize Ethiopia. This was at a time when the rest of Africa was not being modernized. Julius Nyerere of Tanzania noted that “despite the Education and Health services provided by some Christian Missionaries and later begun by colonial governments, at independence less than 50%, of Tanzanians children went to school- and then for only four years or less; 85%, of its adults were illiterate in any language. The country had only 2 African Engineers, 12 Doctors, and perhaps 30 Arts graduates, I was one of them.” Though Africa is still poor and underdeveloped today, the reality is that conditions actually improved for many African nations after they gained independence because leaders began to build the type of infrastructure which the colonizers were not interested in building. This was certainly the case in Tanzania.
D’Souza states: “The descendants of colonialism are better off than they would have been had colonialism never happened.” The reality is that the descendants of colonialism would have been better off if Europeans engaged in legitimate trade with Africa. This is what African rulers wanted. King Afonso of the Kong Kingdom requested that the Portuguese send priests, doctors, and other specialists so his people could learn from them, but the Portuguese were mainly interested in sending slave traders to acquire captives. Improving conditions in Africa simply was not what the European colonizers set out to do, even though African leaders were often eager to learn technical skills from Europeans.
D’Souza obviously does not inform his readers on the worst aspects of colonialism. These aspects were on display several years ago when survivors of British colonialism in Kenya sued for the tortures which they endured. This included rape and castration. This is what D’Souza is defending. D’Souza writes: “Much as it chagrins me to admit it — and much as it will outrage many Third World intellectuals for me to say it — my life would have been much worse had the British never ruled India.” The millions who were starved to death in India by the British may differ with him on this.
D’Souza concludes:
None of this is to say that colonialism by itself was a good thing, only that bad institutions sometimes produce good results. Colonialism, I freely acknowledge, was a harsh regime for those who lived under it. My grandfather would have a hard time giving even one cheer for colonialism. As for me, I cannot manage three, but I am quite willing to grant two. So here it is: Two cheers for colonialism! Maybe you will now see why I am not going to be sending an invoice for reparations to Tony Blair.
To state that colonialism was a “harsh regime” is putting things very mildly. More importantly is the fact that D’Souza has never lived under colonialism, so he is cheering for a system which he has never had to experience. D’Souza claims he owes his success to colonialism, but in truth he owes his success to the social mobility which was made possible by the post-colonial era. He stated: “I am a writer, and I write in English. My ability to do this, and to reach a broad market, is entirely thanks to the British.” In his view, no thanks should be given to those who fought British colonialism in India. I certainly can state for myself, as an African, I owe my success to those who fought colonialism around the world because doing so opened opportunities for many of us which were otherwise denied by the colonial powers.
Can bad institutions produce good results? Sure. The horrific experiments which were carried out by the Nazis did produce scientific data which some reseachers have used. Should we give two cheers to the Holocaust for this reason? I certainly wouldn’t and I know the victims of the Holocaust wouldn’t. D’Souza can cheer colonialism only because he’s never had to experience it. Those who did obviously didn’t like it, which is why there was an effort to end colonialism. British colonialism was so deeply hated by the colonial subjects that the white Americans, who were not subjected to anywhere near the type of hardships inflicted in India and Africa, fought a whole war to get their freedom from British colonial rule. In other words, even racist white people who lived under colonialism weren’t cheering for colonialism in the way that D’Souza did.
—
Subscribe to get full access to all of my articles
